http://gamingtrend.com
May 24, 2015, 06:14:10 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home Help Search Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 401
161  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: The Netflix Instant Watch recommendation thread on: February 24, 2015, 12:24:03 PM
Yes!  Danger 5.

I wanted to come and pimp it again when it hit Netflix, but I was worried I'd be beating a dead horse.
162  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: [PS4, XB1, PC] Evolve (from Turtle Rock) on: February 23, 2015, 08:21:11 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on February 23, 2015, 06:41:15 PM

Infographic from the devs on game stats

I'm really surprised the Goliath is the most chosen monster for players over level 20

I haven't played in a while, but I think the problem is you need to play the Goliath a shit-ton to unlock the next beast.  By the time you get there, though, you're so comfortable playing the Goliath that going to something new will be a really rude awakening.
163  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: A good, basic FPS? on: February 23, 2015, 01:25:26 PM

Quote from: Harkonis on February 23, 2015, 01:20:22 PM

I enjoyed/enjoying Shadow Warrior, though it has melee as well.



I was going to mention Shadow Warrior, too.
164  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: What are you buying this week? (2/24) on: February 23, 2015, 12:25:46 PM
Pneuma: Breath of Life looks like a modern day Myst.  That could be a good thing, but it might be more of a do-we-need-this thing.

For me, maybe Starwhal.

I did like the first RE: Revelations a lot, but on 3DS.  Not sure about this new one.
165  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: [PS4] The Order: 1886 on: February 21, 2015, 04:23:08 PM
TiLT summed it up pretty well, but I would add one thing (which also comes courtesy of Ubisoft).  Collectibles.  Wandering through the first bit of the game, there's a lot of walking, but not a lot to do.  There's a lot to marvel at, graphically, but they have you pick some things up that mostly serve no purpose at all.  There was a newspaper that had some Whitechapel backstory (2 years too early, but then Galahad is coming in several hundred years late, so whatever), but there was also a flask that just seemed randomly placed on a barrell, and it just didn't seem to have a point.

I'm not saying they should have all kinds of hidden doodads (that wouldn't serve this game at all), but I like to explore a little when I'm wandering around in those game segments, and now it seems like there's going to be no reason to do so.

So more than the action "problem" (which, as TiLT says, isn't a problem), this I actually do think could have been tweaked a bit.  But I'm not super far in, maybe that part will improve.

Apart from that, though, I'm pretty sure this'll be a hit with me.
166  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Interrogation or helpful? (GameStop) on: February 21, 2015, 04:11:57 PM
The spiel is definitely a reason I avoid GS if possible.

It's a corporate mandate, and I usually feel sorry for the dude having to give it.  Sometimes you get the gung ho employee (who sounds like what KD experienced), and those dudes I just want to strangle.

The phone spiel is almost as bad.  No joke, I had to call GS recently and the guy who answered the phone rattled off a 45 second spiel at top speed.  Seriously, this was at least 5 long sentences, and I didn't understand most of it.  He got to the end, and I just said, "Wow.  Really?"  And the guy just sighed.
167  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: [PS4] The Order: 1886 on: February 19, 2015, 08:49:07 PM

Quote from: TiLT on February 19, 2015, 04:57:18 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 19, 2015, 03:52:09 PM

Quote from: TiLT on February 19, 2015, 03:13:55 PM

Quote from: leo8877 on February 19, 2015, 03:11:34 PM

I've seen a 95 and a 20.  Not sure I've ever seen that range before.  I wonder if the scores are tainted by the gamer geek length news?

There's no way for us to know. We learn nothing from those two scores without reading the review, and even then the scores might not make sense.

It's almost like TiLT has some personal vendetta against review scores...

Well, what do you learn from those two scores in isolation? If your answer is "that the game is divisive", you're on the wrong track.

Not much, which is why it's great that there are sites that compile so many reviews in a single place that lets me look them all over.
168  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: New ĎAliení Movie Confirmed with Director Neill Blomkamp on: February 19, 2015, 03:59:48 PM
I'm more than cautiously optimistic about this.  I'm goddamned excited as hell.

The concept art was stuff that he did for himself, but he showed it to Fox, then we didn't hear anything for a while.

In a recent interview, someone brought it up and he made it clear that the ball was entirely in his court.  To get it made, he just had to call Fox and say, "Let's do it" because they were already totally on board.  As TiLT said, they had nothing to lose with this franchise and everything to gain.  And they knew it.  And to be in that position and have an up and coming director give them such a lovely package, they must have been drooling (I hope this starts a trend).

Consequently, I think Blomkamp is going to be completely in the drivers seat on this.  I think the suits will let him do whatever the hell he wants.  Ridley is another story, but I think he took enough of a beating on Prometheus that he'll let this one succeed or fail on its own.

But the possibilities of this have me giddy.
169  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: [PS4] The Order: 1886 on: February 19, 2015, 03:52:09 PM

Quote from: TiLT on February 19, 2015, 03:13:55 PM

Quote from: leo8877 on February 19, 2015, 03:11:34 PM

I've seen a 95 and a 20.  Not sure I've ever seen that range before.  I wonder if the scores are tainted by the gamer geek length news?

There's no way for us to know. We learn nothing from those two scores without reading the review, and even then the scores might not make sense.

It's almost like TiLT has some personal vendetta against review scores...
170  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: [PS4/XB1/PC] Assassin's Creed Unity on: February 18, 2015, 10:46:44 PM
I gave up on secondary missions in AC a looong time ago.  Even at the best of times, those spoil the flow of the missions and story for me.
171  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: [PS4/XB1/PC] Assassin's Creed Unity on: February 18, 2015, 08:56:53 PM
I was enjoying it until forum effect soured me (which is on me, of course).

One of my biggest irritants is definitely the integrated chest situation.  And if they have fixed all the other little bugs and such, it might be worth taking another look-see.
172  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [TV] The Walking Dead Season 5 on: February 18, 2015, 06:37:07 PM

Quote from: rittchard on February 18, 2015, 05:54:11 PM

Quote from: Ironrod on February 18, 2015, 04:02:59 AM

I'll go along with that. Creepy clean-cut guy is obviously going to be a problem. Clean-cut guys always are. I hope he doesn't derail the journey-to-DC arc because I like TWD best when they're on the road.

It's really interesting to hear the fan reaction to the new guy.  I often wish I could experience the show without having read any of the comics to have a completely unbiased outlook watching it.  Even though the writers have departed from the comic early and often, many of the core characters, plot locales and themes are the same or similar. 

What's Aaron's secret????

Spoiler for Hiden:
He's GAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   Fabulous Fabulous Fabulous Fabulous

You want to know more? 

Spoiler for Hiden:
In the comic he's a good guy!!!


Spoiler for Hiden:
No wonder he's so clean cut, then.
173  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: The Last Guardian - Trademark abandoned on: February 18, 2015, 06:35:17 PM

Quote from: leo8877 on February 18, 2015, 05:51:24 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 18, 2015, 05:20:02 PM

This is the year it'll be mentioned again at E3, I just know it!

They will probably just cancel it.

Or they renewed the trademark for just 3 months.
174  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: The Last Guardian - Trademark abandoned on: February 18, 2015, 05:20:02 PM
This is the year it'll be mentioned again at E3, I just know it!
175  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [TV] The Walking Dead Season 5 on: February 17, 2015, 08:28:06 PM
There was some pretty heavy handed symbology in this episode, religious and otherwise. And they even title-checked!  But in a show like this, that kind of works.

It was a nice transitional ep, as others have said.
176  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: The Last Guardian - Trademark abandoned on: February 16, 2015, 10:51:17 PM

Quote from: Caine on February 16, 2015, 08:57:55 PM


A gaming trend.
177  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: [PC/360/XB1/Ps3/Ps4] Dying Light on: February 16, 2015, 04:49:33 PM
I put off buying this game because I really wasn't a fan of Dead Island.  And I didn't need another sandbox game cluttering up my PS4 hard drive.

But forum effect got me. 

And I've been playing it for a week, almost exclusively.  Wow, I'm really loving it. 

It's rough around the edges in the right ways.  I do wish combat was a little more consistent.  Some zombies I can take out in one blow, others take a couple of hits, and then some it seems like are taking 5 or 6 wallops.  These are all with the same weapon and similar seeming zombies (not the big hammer bros or anything).

It's compelling map discovery without being overwhelming.  The fact that stuff in apartments restocks (never mind story reasoning on that), means that you don't have to be compulsive scouring every nook and cranny, but I still feel the allure of an open window.  I do wish my radar range (heh) was bigger.  I imagine that's an upgrade you can get at some point.

Speaking of upgrades, so far every time the choices have been great.  At the beginning, there were obvious choices for how I like to play.  Now, a little further in, I've just started unlocking stuff where I was set on one upgrade that was okay, but a new one is perfect for me.  Really nice progression there.

There is a definite flow to this game, in moving around and combat and mission structure and story.  I've heard complaints about the story, but I think it's just the right level of interesting without being complicated (which, frankly, is what you need in a sandbox game where you might be going days or weeks between story missions).

I've been really impressed and entertained with this one.  Thanks, forum effect for, um, affecting me.
178  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: What are you buying this week? (2/17) on: February 16, 2015, 04:37:33 PM
I've always been interested in The Order, both at the E3 launch and when people were shocked it was a 3rd person shooter.  I don't care about the length, but I'll still wait for reviews.  I imagine I'll pick it up, though.

Qbert Rebooted looked cute to me. But how cute?
Hand of Fate might be interesting.

Kirby and the Rainbow Curse I'm always up for a good Kirby game.
179  Gaming / Portable Gaming & Apps / Re: Re: Re: NEW 3DS and XL on: February 15, 2015, 06:16:10 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on February 15, 2015, 06:20:36 AM

Quote from: TiLT on February 14, 2015, 04:25:07 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on February 14, 2015, 03:34:38 PM

Quote from: TiLT on February 14, 2015, 02:06:08 PM

Quote from: Canuck on February 14, 2015, 11:35:08 AM

Quote from: ChaoZ on February 14, 2015, 02:23:00 AM


First thing that struck me was how low res the screens are. I guess I'm just used to cell phone screens.

I don't get how Nintendo gets a complete pass on that from all the review sites.  I read somewhere online (in a comment not an article so take from that what you will) that the new 3DS XL has a 95 ppi. If true then that's just horrible. I suppose being an upgrade and not a brand new system they maybe can't change the resolution but hell.

What are they supposed to do?

Ooh ooh! I know this one!

They could increase the pixel density!  

And what would that accomplish? If you want to increase the pixel density while keeping the same resolution, you'll just have a smaller screen. That's the regular 3DS size.

I'd want them to up the resolution of both the small and the big versions. Once games start coming out that require the extra analog thingie and the extra processor power, the New 3DS turns into another new handheld with backward compatibility, just one with the tiniest of improvements over its predecessor.

There maybe a couple of games that use the extra processing or control nub, but I honestly don't think any will require it.  And over time, I don't think we'll see many that even use those features.

The retailer and consumer backlash that'll come from people buying games that are labeled "New 3DS required" when they may have just recently purchased an "old" 3DS is just too great.

Hell, most consumers were confused by the Wii/Wii U thing.  Adding "New" to the name of the old unit is just a bad idea.

Again, much as I love this new little unit, I really think Nintendo screwed up big time with both this incremental release and the naming of it.

180  Gaming / Portable Gaming & Apps / Re: NEW 3DS and XL on: February 14, 2015, 05:03:53 PM

Quote from: TiLT on February 14, 2015, 02:06:08 PM

Quote from: Canuck on February 14, 2015, 11:35:08 AM

Quote from: ChaoZ on February 14, 2015, 02:23:00 AM


First thing that struck me was how low res the screens are. I guess I'm just used to cell phone screens.

I don't get how Nintendo gets a complete pass on that from all the review sites.  I read somewhere online (in a comment not an article so take from that what you will) that the new 3DS XL has a 95 ppi. If true then that's just horrible. I suppose being an upgrade and not a brand new system they maybe can't change the resolution but hell.

What are they supposed to do? The 3DS games run at a low resolution that was intended for a smaller screen. The XL merely increases the size of the screen. It can't suddenly become higher resolution and create pixels that simply aren't there. There isn't a free pass to give here, because there's no realistic way for them to increase DPI without making an entirely new handheld console.

They maybe should have released an entirely new handheld console.  Especially instead of this sort of new upgrade with features (the right nub, the faster power) that won't be supported because Nintendo bifurcated the market.

However.  I love the new 3DS, so I shouldn't complain.
181  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Marvel Phase 3 Updates on: February 13, 2015, 10:45:35 PM

Quote from: Purge on February 13, 2015, 07:31:47 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 13, 2015, 01:33:04 AM

Quote from: Purge on February 12, 2015, 08:33:14 PM

Bullwinkle, you're right. I meant contrary.

But hey, thanks for reminding me why I cared so much about your opinion on what I base MY opinion on. I should simply check in to get your feedback on what I should like - cuz you know, Iron Man 2 and 3 were on par with the original (which would certainly show things getting better, no?)

So why not assume Avengers 2 is going to be better? Oh, wait. Discussing this with you is pointless. Carry on telling me why I'm wrong to not assume all things Marvel (produced or not) are subject to the same criticality that I employ in say, deciding to watch movies directed by those geniuses behind The Matrix (1).


Purge, I honestly don't care about your feelings for any upcoming movies, by which I mean you're welcome to your opinions.  What I care about is when you're basing those opinions on incorrect information.  And stubbornly hold to them despite evidence to show where you've been incorrect.



So my SEVEN attempts to watch Thor 2, that's right SEVEN, in which the movie has failed to grab me is no cause for concern? I have yet to finish it ... it's just so MEH! I've also listed Phase 2 movies in my list of movies that have concerns (hence the reference to both direct and indirect).

Marvel made money renting out their licenses to other production companies. But of course, this is just my stubborn streak. Roll Eyes And to point this out - you're the one stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that I may have a point by clinging to the idea that the entirety of my opinion is derived on movies that Marvel didn't produce directly.

And by that same yardstick, some of the treatments outside Marvel have also been awesome, so I fail to see how I'm wrong in assuming all movies based in the Marvel universe (regardless of publisher) should be viewed critically before becoming an instant fan.

Jesus, Purge.  Whatever.

You slammed MCU movies and listed non-MCU movies to do it.

You posted this in a public forum, and yet you got your nut in a twist because someone in that public said something about it.

182  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: [PS4, XB1, PC] Evolve (from Turtle Rock) on: February 13, 2015, 01:44:37 AM

Quote from: Harkonis on February 12, 2015, 07:45:42 PM

If there is a maggie on the hunter team, sneak will most likely just get you killed. Daisy doesn't give a shit if you're sneaking, she'll find you anyway so all sneaking does is not alert birds and slow you down so you get caught.  Speed is key, keep moving

This I didn't consider.  One of the tips I keep hearing (both online and in the video hints that pop up after you've sucked at being a monster multiple times) is to run for a bit, then sneak back in the opposite direction to throw them off.  Guess that won't work with Daisy.

I can do pretty well leaping away from the hunters, but eventually, you hit the edge of the arena.  Then you have to go somewhere, and I swear to God I seem to head right for where the hunters are going to be.  Even trying to smell them doesn't help.

I have tried over and over to focus on one hunter, unless they have a shield up, trying to get them down.  I have also tried not doing that.  Not one has died.  Not one. 

I read this tip: "You can't regenerate your health.  If you lose your armor, you should consider running away."  And where the hell am I supposed to run, genius?  Into that blue wall that the trapper has slapped up all around me?  "If the hunter has an arena dome up, you should consider taking her out first."  I refer you back to the last paragraph and the number of hunters I have successfully killed.

Today, after posting, I actually had my first in-game moment where I thought I'd accomplished something.  I was the trapper and I, myself, slapped an arena dome down, but in just the right spot so the monster couldn't get away, and also couldn't get to the power plant we were protecting.  This was actually a plan and everything, but I couldn't believe I actually achieved it.

None the less, I still get this feeling that the game is taunting me, saying, "You suck. This isn't for you. Nice waste of money, asswipe!"  The time is fast approaching where I shelve it.  I hope I turn that magic corner, though.  I want to like it.
183  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Marvel Phase 3 Updates on: February 13, 2015, 01:33:04 AM

Quote from: Purge on February 12, 2015, 08:33:14 PM

Bullwinkle, you're right. I meant contrary.

But hey, thanks for reminding me why I cared so much about your opinion on what I base MY opinion on. I should simply check in to get your feedback on what I should like - cuz you know, Iron Man 2 and 3 were on par with the original (which would certainly show things getting better, no?)

So why not assume Avengers 2 is going to be better? Oh, wait. Discussing this with you is pointless. Carry on telling me why I'm wrong to not assume all things Marvel (produced or not) are subject to the same criticality that I employ in say, deciding to watch movies directed by those geniuses behind The Matrix (1).


Purge, I honestly don't care about your feelings for any upcoming movies, by which I mean you're welcome to your opinions.  What I care about is when you're basing those opinions on incorrect information.  And stubbornly hold to them despite evidence to show where you've been incorrect.

184  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Marvel Phase 3 Updates on: February 12, 2015, 06:57:56 PM

Quote from: Purge on February 12, 2015, 05:30:03 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 12, 2015, 12:40:27 PM

Quote from: Purge on February 11, 2015, 08:45:51 PM

They apply to Marvel, if not MCU directly.


But they don't apply to your argument.  They were not made directly by Marvel.  It wasn't until the MCU started (Iron Man) that they were.

And, sure, some of the MCU films are better than others, but overall, the persistence of quality has been fairly staggering.  Your "Make Mine Marvel...Perhaps" stance loses steam if you're looking at it right.

If Marvel decided to rent out their property, and the people who rented it damaged it, who's responsible?

Yeah. You're not going to get me to agree that they have clean hands due to it being elsewhere - those other companies have rights to the property, but it's not like they didn't GIVE them that right. Furthermore I listed ones directly under their watchful eye (Production company and all) that have not impressed me.

So when I say I don't give their upcoming movies an instant pass, it's not because I'm being contrite. They have earned it - both directly and indirectly.

I can see you are being immovably stubborn, despite evidence to the contrary, so I'm not sure why I would continue with the discussion, but while you're not being contrite (mostly because I don't think that word means what you think it means), you are believing what you want to believe, evidence be damned.

Marvel's track record since taking over making movies directly has been, while not spotless, pretty consistent none the less.  Enough so that there's no reason to not expect them to continue.  Apart from the notion that they have to stumble sometime.  But they've put out a string of movies (nearly a dozen, by this point) that have been critical and box office hits, not to mention fan hits as well.  So let's say Ant-Man sucks (which I'm not ruling out, given the trailer).  That's still a 10% failure rate (likely lower, assuming Ultron kicks ass).  There is absolutely no reason not to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Not only are you obstinately doing the opposite, you keep bringing up movies that weren't done under the same conditions at all to justify it.  Marvel was not the successful moviemaking entity it is now when it was trying to get Marvel branded characters on the screen.  They didn't have a choice so far as farming the films out to other studios goes.  Hell, do you think that if they did, they would have let the rights to Spider-Man and the X-Men go to begin with??  

These other movies were made at a completely other time.  Eventually, because some of them were popular, Marvel gained enough cred and bank to do it their way, the way they always wanted to do it, the way they knew would work.  To do it right.

Yes, some of the MCU movies are better than the others, but even the weak ones have been decent.  Enough so, that a new movie from them is one to be looked forward to, not through a skeptical lens because you didn't like X-Men Origins Wolverine.
185  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Marvel Phase 3 Updates on: February 12, 2015, 04:27:21 PM

Quote from: msteelers on February 12, 2015, 03:12:31 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 11, 2015, 02:33:32 PM

Quote from: Turtle on February 11, 2015, 12:36:44 AM

They need to add a scene back into the Avengers movie where the camera pans over a scene where a bunch of aliens are caught in a web.

Do it, Marvel.

Do it.

I was thinking about this, too.  I know it's too late to add Spidey into AoU, and it depends on the specific deal they have with Sony (how many appearances allowed, etc.), but I fully expect some sort of cameo to be slipped in, even it's just Spidey swinging by in the background of a city street shot.

I think they can do a great after credits scene in the upcoming Avengers film to introduce Spidey and get his origin story out of the way. They could show him getting bitten by a spider, or maybe something else. This is what I'm hoping for:

The video is taken from a body camera on a police officer. The scene starts with the cop coming onto the scene of an old man who has been shot, and a scrawny teenager upset holding the body with a group of people crowding around. As the cop begins to find out what happens the radio squawks with a potential location of the shooter. In the background we can see the teenager slip away. A few moments later we see Spider-Man swinging by the cop in pursuit of the shooter.

Is it weird that this is the crap I think about when I'm driving to and from work in the mornings?

I don't think we'll see Peter Parker so much as Spider-Man, since they haven't quite cast him yet, but who knows.  I have heard reports of certain actors being considered.
186  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: [PS4, XB1, PC] Evolve (from Turtle Rock) on: February 12, 2015, 04:25:46 PM
I don't think I have ever sucked at a game as bad as I suck at this one.

I have not come close to winning in SP, no matter who or what I am playing.  I have yet to kill even a single hunter while playing the monster, in fact.

MP I have won some matches, but that's because I've technically been on the winning team, despite being completely dead a short time after arriving (it didn't help that the game one time put me into the role of a bot who was in the middle of getting ripped to shreds at the time), only to find everyone else pulling off a victory before I could get to them again.

I have not once felt like I've accomplished something in this game.

I've been trying to read online tips, but they all wind up saying things like "Don't fight the hunters while you're level 1" but even if I'm sneaking around, eating shit, they slap an arena down, and I'm trapped until dead.  "Kill the trapper if there's an arena" like that's just a thing you can do: kill the trapper - just do it.  "Don't just trail the monster, get around it" what the hell do you think I'm trying to do?  "Fight together" no shit, but also "Don't fight together, as the monster will wipe you out in groups" WTF?
187  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Eurogamer drops review scores on: February 12, 2015, 02:44:39 PM

Quote from: TiLT on February 12, 2015, 01:16:05 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 12, 2015, 12:51:05 PM

TiLT, I think you think you've "explained" this to us heathens, but you really haven't.

Yes I have. Here, let me quote part of just one of my own previous posts in this thread that clearly answer your questions.

Quote from: TiLT on February 10, 2015, 09:56:32 PM

To make things worse, some sites deliberately post extreme review scores to Metacritic in order to get more clicks (ie. clickbaiting) to their own site. They love it when they post a low score for a popular game, only for people to angrily visit their site to complain. Those same people produce page hits and ad views. The site "wins" while the consumers lose, and the Metascore becomes ever more irrelevant.

Metacritic also suffers due to different sites having vastly different scales for their review scores. Sites like IGN give everything 8/10 unless it's exceptional (9/10) or horrible (7/10), while another site may use the full scale. It's different everywhere, with no unified scale that anyone can agree upon. Metacritic doesn't care. It lumps them together as if they are in any way comparable, and the consumer who looks at the review scores is none the wiser. It even converts the review scale if it doesn't fit the standard percentage scale they use, so a 4/5 star review becomes 80% in their system, a score that few would argue means the same thing when it comes to game reviews. Joystiq ended up having to start giving half stars after a while of this, which is telling.

There's also the issue with Metacritic outright refusing to update scores if a site should change its mind, which is one of the things Polygon wishes to deal with directly with their new preliminary review system. Did a site review Driveclub or Halo: The Master Chief Collection in a controlled review environment, giving the game a high score that isn't in any way representative of the horrible experience customers got after release? Tough luck, because Metacritic doesn't care in the slightest if a site wishes to revise its review. Thug tactics by publishers to force early reviews based on unrealistic review scenarios are highly successful because Metacritic outright aids them in their efforts.

These are just part of the reason why Metacritic is a problem, and I've mentioned others in this thread. Other things Metacritic does wrong is that it hides the math behind how it calculates its Metascores (it's not an average. Reviews are weighted based on factors we know absolutely nothing about), and scores can be completely messed up by outlier reviews.

You're deliberately ignoring my explanations, focusing on individual points and forgetting the rest. It's all (well, not all. There's plenty more I haven't mentioned, covered in detail by others in other places) there.

Edit: Oh, and before you say "but this is the fault of those other sites for not using Metacritic right" or something in that vein, allow me to interrupt you and say: No, it's the fault of Metacritic for putting an utterly (as in 100%) useless and nonredeemable aggregate score front and center. Even if nobody abused it, it would still be useless by its very nature, yet it does harm because the average consumer actually thinks it holds some kind of meaning.

I am not deliberately ignoring your explanations, TiLT.  They just haven't explained the problem.

The only thing I see that is on Metacritic is that they use some mystical math to derive the averages it posts.  And you've only just mentioned it.  But even that is not damning in and of itself, per se.  Certainly not as damning as the way those scores are being used by publishers.

But "clickbaiting" is on the sites doing that.  And, yes, so is choosing to use a different method of scoring.  As is changing review scores, really.  Sites bowing to pressure to get a review out the door day 1 should still be held to a standard for getting that review right.  The thug tactics are, again, on the publishers. 


188  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Eurogamer drops review scores on: February 12, 2015, 12:51:05 PM
TiLT, I think you think you've "explained" this to us heathens, but you really haven't.

Metacritic takes review scores and puts them together.  Companies then take those averaged scores and use them for their own ends.

Your explanations so far seem to be to add the word "evily" when describing what Metacritic does.  And to add the phrase "and nothing else" after the averaged scores bit on the company side.

I'm giving you the chance to explain how Metacritic is doing something other than compiling scores from across the web.  How are they adding nefarious plots to that seemingly very simple function.  How is it that others are not taking this simple function and twisting its use for their own financial gain and that Metacritic is to blame?
189  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: The Man From UNCLE from Guy Ritchie on: February 12, 2015, 12:42:10 PM
I was very impressed with that trailer.  Really looking forward to this now.

And did we ship Hugh Grant to Siberia for a decade or something?  Where the hell has he been?  Good to see him again.
190  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Marvel Phase 3 Updates on: February 12, 2015, 12:40:27 PM

Quote from: Purge on February 11, 2015, 08:45:51 PM

They apply to Marvel, if not MCU directly.


But they don't apply to your argument.  They were not made directly by Marvel.  It wasn't until the MCU started (Iron Man) that they were.

And, sure, some of the MCU films are better than others, but overall, the persistence of quality has been fairly staggering.  Your "Make Mine Marvel...Perhaps" stance loses steam if you're looking at it right.
191  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Eurogamer drops review scores on: February 11, 2015, 11:40:37 PM

Quote from: TiLT on February 11, 2015, 09:45:29 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 11, 2015, 08:52:08 PM

However, taking it away would be much worse for the folks who use those sites.  Myself included.  Honestly, if I didn't have an easy way to sort through reviews at this point in my life, I'm sure I'd be spending less money, especially on the smaller games.  And I know I'm not alone.  Following that path, destroying Metacritic won't hurt the big publishers at all, but will have an affect on consumers and the smaller companies, struggling to make it.

No, the effect on consumers would be temporary, if not non-existent. Another site would pop up almost immediately to take its place, and if Metacritic were to fall due to outside pressure, the replacement site(s) would try to avoid Metacritic's mistakes so as not to end up alienating everyone right away.

Metacritic's problem right now is that they refuse to change their system, despite the enormous amounts of criticism they're getting from the people they're aggregating. As far as Metacritic is concerned, their site works perfectly when it clearly doesn't.

You've also got Gamerankings, which does a similar thing to Metacritic and would probably have been just as criticized if they had any actual power any more. I think they're too old to be able to take the throne again though, and the fact that it's part of Gamespot doesn't help their chances in the slightest.

No, the effect on consumers would certainly not be non-existent.  It might be temporary, but if it is, it'll be because something else has risen to take Metacritic's place.  How in any way is that different from where we are now?

If Metacritic failed and GameRankings rose again, square one.

If Metacritic dies due to the fact that no one does review scores any more, then the consumer and small publishers will not be temporarily affected. 

192  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Eurogamer drops review scores on: February 11, 2015, 08:52:08 PM

Quote from: TiLT on February 11, 2015, 07:23:10 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 11, 2015, 05:13:44 PM

We're not taking a defeatist attitude of "Well, the problem can't be fixed, so why fix it."

On the contrary, that's exactly what Gratch did, and specifically what I responded to. As for yourself, you're apparently suggesting that the publishers are the root of the issue. What's your solution to that issue, if I may ask? Shoving the problem one step over doesn't make it less defeatist.


He really didn't, TiLT.

And I don't have a solution, TiLT.  I'm not trying to offer one.  I'm simply pointing out that saying that Metacritic is the problem isn't correct.  If it goes away, the problem will shift to something else.  Taking Metacritic away will create a void to be filled by something else, potentially worse (self generated scoring, for example).

I'm not even saying that big publishers should go away.  I'm actually pretty happy with the content they put out.  I'm just saying Metacritic is a tool they use to keep it all about money and business.  Metacritic isn't the only tool in their box, of course, and if you take it away, they'll shift to something else.  Taking it away will be an inconvenience at best for them.

However, taking it away would be much worse for the folks who use those sites.  Myself included.  Honestly, if I didn't have an easy way to sort through reviews at this point in my life, I'm sure I'd be spending less money, especially on the smaller games.  And I know I'm not alone.  Following that path, destroying Metacritic won't hurt the big publishers at all, but will have an affect on consumers and the smaller companies, struggling to make it.
193  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Marvel Phase 3 Updates on: February 11, 2015, 08:36:01 PM

Quote from: Purge on February 11, 2015, 05:08:13 PM

And Daredevil? Oh, I know, Punisher! Hulk? Perhaps Ghost Rider is the high ground to defend Marvel's movie-making skill? Tongue

All I'm saying that "Make mine Marvel." should be tempered with "... perhaps."  

'Nuff said. slywink

Not a single one of the projects you listed apply, with the possible exception of The Incredible Hulk (though it's unclear if you were talking about the Marvel movie or the Ang Lee one [which was just called "Hulk"]).  I also liked the Incredible Hulk.

Here are the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies:

Phase One
Iron Man
The Incredible Hulk
Iron Man 2
Thor
Captain America: The First Avenger
The Avengers
Phase Two
Iron Man 3
Thor: The Dark World
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Guardians of the Galaxy
Avengers: Age of Ultron
Ant-Man
Phase 3
Captain America: Civil War
Doctor Strange
Guardians of the Galaxy 2
Spider-Man
Thor: Ragnarok
Avengers: Infinity War Part I
Black Panther
Captain Marvel
Avengers: Infinity War Part II
Inhumans
194  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Eurogamer drops review scores on: February 11, 2015, 05:13:44 PM

Quote from: TiLT on February 11, 2015, 04:44:12 PM

Quote from: Gratch on February 11, 2015, 03:36:21 PM

You're right, there is no hard evidence that publishers were using a third-party tool as leverage prior to Metacritic.  However, Metacritic launched in 1999.  I'd say that the gaming industry (especially on the business/publishing side) as a whole is vastly different today than it was 15 years ago.

I'm sorry, what I meant to write was "before Metacritic became powerful within gaming", which took quite a few years after its original launch. It's not that many years since Gamerankings was bigger than Metacritic is now.

I wrote my previous post at work while my boss loomed in the background, so I was a bit rushed, hence the poor choice of wording.

Quote
Metascore has been an available tool, so they've used it...but that doesn't mean they won't find something else if/when it's gone.

No offense intended, but that's the kind of defeatist attitude that I will never accept for myself. "It's never going to get better anyway, so why try to work towards change?" is a very, very dangerous line of thinking. While gaming is far from the most serious of things in our lives, it's still serious enough that we've got this forum where a bunch of us has been hanging around for more than 15 years, experiencing our shared hobby together.

Metacritic has hurt the industry in more ways than we realize. In fact, reading the Kotaku articles today, and what developers and previous employees at publishers were saying in it, made me realize that the current Ubisoft way of designing games probably came around because of a need to inflate overall review scores. As the interviewed people themselves point out, things like making games open world instead of level based raises the review scores for the most part. Before Metacritic got huge, we had far fewer review sites around the net, so publishers were less concerned about appealing to the broadest possible reviewer audience than they are now. They did focus on the lowest common consumer denominator though, but that's a different issue and probably more beneficial to gamers anyway.


This is just asinine, Tilt.

Metacritic has not hurt the industry.  Publishers have hurt the industry using Metacritic.  As the hobby has grown into a cash cow, publishers went from being people who cared about gaming to people who cared about the money they could make from gaming.

We're not taking a defeatist attitude of "Well, the problem can't be fixed, so why fix it."  What we are saying is that Metacritic isn't the problem.  You are attempting to cure a symptom, not the disease.

195  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Marvel Phase 3 Updates on: February 11, 2015, 02:33:32 PM

Quote from: Turtle on February 11, 2015, 12:36:44 AM

They need to add a scene back into the Avengers movie where the camera pans over a scene where a bunch of aliens are caught in a web.

Do it, Marvel.

Do it.

I was thinking about this, too.  I know it's too late to add Spidey into AoU, and it depends on the specific deal they have with Sony (how many appearances allowed, etc.), but I fully expect some sort of cameo to be slipped in, even it's just Spidey swinging by in the background of a city street shot.
196  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Eurogamer drops review scores on: February 11, 2015, 02:31:22 PM

Quote from: TiLT on February 11, 2015, 01:28:17 PM

Quote from: Gratch on February 11, 2015, 01:18:18 PM

Quote
Independent studios like Obsidian Entertainment (South Park: The Stick of Truth) and the now-defunct Airtight Games (Murdered: Soul Suspect) are frequently asked to show their Metacritic scores while meeting with publishers about potential deals to make new games
Do you honestly think that publishers haven't evaluated every single aspect of Obsidian's track record (i.e. sales, quality of games, target audience, etc.) prior to meeting with them about a potential game?  That somehow Obsidian's answer to "but how were your Metacritic scores?" is going to be the deciding factor as to whether or not they get published?  Get real.

Quote
Metacritic scores are also tied to bonuses; Obsidian lost out on a cool $1 million because Fallout: New Vegas was one point away from 85, according to sources.56
As has been said before, that's just stupid business on Obsidian's part to have bonuses tied to Metacritic scores as a part of their bonus structure.  I also wonder how prevalent this practice actually is.  Everyone points to this one high profile example, but I haven't heard of it happening much elsewhere.  Regardless, companies are free to negotiate how they get paid, and I'm sure a solution could be found that ties bonuses to a different metric.

You need to read the articles more closely, as both your points are covered in detail. The people Kotaku talked to said that this is a common practice, not at all unique to Obsidian. Furthermore, the Metascore is not used to evaluate the quality of a studio. It's not in the slightest a deciding factor as to whether or not they get published. It's used as an excuse and as leverage to force developers into making shitty deals. Metacritic is a factor that the publisher has WAY more control over than the developer (by merely pushing the game out before the developer feels it's ready, they can keep scores down if that's their intention), but it's still used against the developers.

Having bonuses tied to a different metric would be a godsend. As the articles point out, Metacritic is used as a simple excuse for publishers to pretend to give the developers more money ("Oh, you want more money to develop the game? Well, if you're so sure that it's going to improve the game, then why not tie this to the game's Metacritic score and pay it out as a bonus at the end?") without really having to in most cases.

Honestly, both these points are covered extensively in the articles, and is explained in far more detail than what I did here.

What you seem to be missing, TiLT, is that each of these examples and really everything "damning" that has been brought here against Metacritic should really be pointed at the publishers.  How is it Metacritic's fault that publishers use a site that compiles review scores to do shitty things?  How is it Metacritics fault that bribes for good review scores happen?  

As Gratch said earlier (though he clearly didn't understand you, since he didn't agree with you): "And I'm sure all of these bad behaviors will just disappear if/when Metacritic goes away."  I actually think you missed his point, not the other way around.  The problem is that video gaming has turned into a gazillion dollar industry.  The biggest entertainment industry.  As a result, it's filled with suits.  Suits will do anything to keep the money on the suit side.  Metacritic is a tool.  Normal folks use it to help guide them in gaming choices.  Suits in the gaming industry use it for evil purposes.  If you take that tool away, they will find another tool.  They are those kind of tools, themselves.

You're killing the messenger.  Not the problem.
197  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Eurogamer drops review scores on: February 10, 2015, 09:41:07 PM

Quote from: TiLT on February 10, 2015, 09:20:07 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 10, 2015, 09:15:30 PM

But if I were looking and I saw "wonderpug: 9.5" I would say, "Oh, I usually agree with his opinions.  If he likes it, maybe there's a reason.  Maybe I will, too."  And I'd click through to look at your summary and then figure out if I wanted to read through the whole review.  If I saw the "TiLT: 4.5" I'd remember that TiLT doesn't like anything and take that with a grain of salt.  I'd probably still click through, since it's so low, to see if there was anything I should watch out for.  If there wasn't a score that covered the middle ground, then I might be looking into The Martian more (btw, I have the page pulled up on Amazon now).  

But that's not how Metacritic works. It only lists the site where the review appeared, not who reviewed it. You have no idea whose opinion you're looking at until you actually click your way into that site to check for yourself, if they even list that kind of thing in the first place. The example you quoted refers to people, but it's not representative of what Metacritic is.

Sorry, I guess the meaning got lost in literal limbo.  I was substituting people for the sites as wonderpug was in his analogy.

There are sites I trust.
198  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Eurogamer drops review scores on: February 10, 2015, 09:15:30 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on February 10, 2015, 07:32:48 PM

Quote from: EngineNo9 on February 10, 2015, 07:25:11 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on February 10, 2015, 06:38:00 PM

I highly recommend reading The Martian by Andy Weir if you like books that I'd rate a 9.5 for various behind the scenes reasons you'll never see.  Do you prefer romance novels, serious ones, or even like sci fi?  Irrelevant.  The question is just whether or not you like 9.5 books.

I'm not sure what your point is.  I can look on Amazon and see that it's a 4.5 star book, and since I do like scifi I'm going to dig more and see if it's worthwhile*.  If it was a 2 star book, I wouldn't bother regardless of any other details since most people clearly don't like it.  

* hypothetically.  I have already read The Martian and it's fantastic.

If The Martian was a game, hordes of people would just see "wonderpug: 9.5" on metacritic and not read anything about why I liked the game so much.  The only other review on metacritic at the time is a 4.5 by TiLT.  Average score 7, so... probably worth skipping for most people.  Why even read the reviews?

If you scrap the numbers, then you have to read the reviews and see that wonderpug loves sci-fi books and TiLT was kicked in the shin by Andy Weir when they were children.

Honestly, I think I have a bigger beef with score aggregation sites than I do with the concept of number scores.  I'd love to see a Rotten Tomatoes style aggregator for gaming, because I find that approach is much more reliable for figuring out if a movie is universally loved or hated, or if it's love/hate and I need dig into reviews to see which side I'd fall on.

But if I were looking and I saw "wonderpug: 9.5" I would say, "Oh, I usually agree with his opinions.  If he likes it, maybe there's a reason.  Maybe I will, too."  And I'd click through to look at your summary and then figure out if I wanted to read through the whole review.  If I saw the "TiLT: 4.5" I'd remember that TiLT doesn't like anything and take that with a grain of salt.  I'd probably still click through, since it's so low, to see if there was anything I should watch out for.  If there wasn't a score that covered the middle ground, then I might be looking into The Martian more (btw, I have the page pulled up on Amazon now).  

As for the effort involved with reading summaries, of course it's not a big deal to read a summary (especially bullet pointed) and then figure out if you want to read the whole review.  What is a big deal is doing that a dozen times over all the reviews.  First, there's the small issue of finding the reviews.  I personally don't want to visit every game news/review site on the internet daily to see what reviews they might have up.  I don't want to bother Googling a game and trawling for the reviews, clicking through to each one, especially for sites that aren't really worth the effort.  What I find incredibly useful is going to a review aggregate site (I use GameRankings), seeing how a game is fairing and seeing who's given what number scores, then clicking through to the ones I'm curious about.  I find this even more useful for older games that slipped by me.

Using this method, I have also discovered new sites that I like to visit now from time to time.  There have been sites that I may have only glanced at initially whose reviews seem to click with me over time and now they are trusted.  I suspect GamingTrend fits that bill for a lot of people, by the way.

Eurogamer is a site I visit most days, so for me, this won't affect them, but if they kill sites like Metacritic or GR, then they are also killing all the little sites that don't get visited daily, and that kind of sucks.
199  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Dear Gamespot, Stop Trying to Make Me Care about Your Host Personalities on: February 10, 2015, 02:52:40 PM
Here she is looking terrified.  Or just looking to the side, really.  I guess she didn't want to mess up her hair.

I should be thankful that she's tried a new look.
200  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: [TV] The Walking Dead Season 5 on: February 10, 2015, 02:38:20 PM

Quote from: rittchard on February 10, 2015, 12:38:14 AM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 09, 2015, 11:33:08 PM

Quote from: Lee on February 09, 2015, 09:11:05 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 09, 2015, 08:39:34 PM

I can't imagine how it was "lame".

Boring, with needless cameos from past cast members that were silly, an uninteresting story line of watching a character (that they never developed into anything interesting) dying, dragged out for an hour, etc. This is the most wish-washy shows I have ever watched, some great stuff, interrupted with long boring shows with uninspired writing. I just don't care about the characters, I don't find them interesting. They were in the early seasons, there were dynamics between them. Now, I don't know how to describe it, they are just boring and predictable. I want Rick to die at this point, the shows needs to move in a different direction.

Lee, I almost can't respond to this (though obviously I can).

Boring just doesn't seem possible to imagine for me on this one.  The cameos were so far from needless or silly - they were germane to understanding what the other character was going through, which was nuanced and thought-out and so inspired that I honestly can't understand why you're even bothering with the show.  It seems to have moved beyond you.

Have to agree with Bullwinkle, sounds like Lee is mentally done with the show.  Reminds me of a lot of different people reacting to Lost at certain points in the show.  They shifted from avid fans to haters and it seemed like nothing the writers did could change the course.  The fact is it's always easy to poke holes and find things to dislike if that's the mental space you approach it.  I'm actually starting to picture Lee as Jebediah Atkinson lol:

http://www.hulu.com/watch/603074

Anyway back to the ep, I also have to agree that the cameos were excellent, though I think one cameo I would have liked to have seen would be his girlfriend from the prison.  Also maybe Herschel would have had more emotional impact for the fans.

Herschel wouldn't have as much emotional impact for Tyrese, though.  All those other people were weighing on him for various reasons (though the Governor was maybe a little fan service).  The girlfriend would have been good, though.  Maybe he didn't feel guilt over her or maybe since he'd forgiven Carol that bit was closed for him or maybe the actress wasn't available.
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 401
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.305 seconds with 20 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.18s, 1q)